The Gap in Attitudes Toward Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment Between Japanese Physicians and Citizens.

BACKGROUND: According to some medical ethicists and professional guidelines, there is no ethical difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. However, medical professionals do not always agree with this notion. Patients and their families may also not regard these decisions as equivalent. Perspectives on life-sustaining treatment potentially differ between cultures and countries. This study compares Japanese physicians' and citizens' attitudes toward hypothetical cases of withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. METHODS: Ten vignette cases were developed. A web-based questionnaire was administered to 457 citizens and 284 physicians to determine whether they supported withholding or withdrawing treatment. RESULTS: In a case where a patient had an advance directive refusing ventilation, 77% of the physicians and 68% of the citizens chose to withhold treatment. In a case where there was an advance directive but the patient's family requested treatment, 55% of the physicians and 45% of the citizens chose to withhold the ventilator. When a family requested withdrawal of the ventilator but patient wishes were unknown, 19% of the physicians and 48% of the citizens chose to withdraw the ventilator. However, when the patient had also indicated their wishes in writing, 49% of the physicians and 66% of the citizens chose to withdraw treatment. More physicians were prepared to withdraw dialysis (84%) and artificial nutrition (81%) at a patient's request than mechanical ventilation (49%). CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of Japanese physicians and citizens were reluctant to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, even in cases where the patient had indicated their wishes in writing. They were more likely to withhold than withdraw treatment, and more likely to withdraw artificial nutrition than mechanical ventilation. Japanese physicians gave significant weight to family views about treatment but were less likely to agree to withdraw treatment than citizens, indicating a potential source of conflict in clinical settings.

COVID-19 critical care triage across Canada: a narrative synthesis and ethical analysis of early provincial triage protocols.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic created conditions of scarcity that led many provinces within Canada to develop triage protocols for critical care resources. In this study, we sought to undertake a narrative synthesis and ethical analysis of early provincial pandemic triage protocols. METHODS: We collected provincial triage protocols through personal correspondence with academic and political stakeholders between June and August 2020. Protocol data were extracted independently by two researchers and compared for accuracy and agreement. We separated data into three categories for comparative content analysis: protocol development, ethical framework, and protocol content. Our ethical analysis was informed by a procedural justice framework. RESULTS: We obtained a total of eight provincial triage protocols. Protocols were similar in content, although age, physiologic scores, and functional status were variably incorporated. Most protocols were developed through a multidisciplinary, expert-driven, consensus process, and many were informed by influenza pandemic guidelines previously developed in Ontario. All protocols employed tiered morality-focused exclusion criteria to determine scarce resource allocation at the level of regional health care systems. None included a public engagement phase, although targeted consultation with public advocacy groups and relevant stakeholders was undertaken in select provinces. Most protocols were not publicly available in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Early provincial COVID-19 triage protocols were developed by dedicated expert committees under challenging circumstances. Nonetheless, few were publicly available, and public consultation was limited. No protocols were ever implemented, including during periods of extreme critical care surge. A national approach to pandemic triage that incorporates additional aspects of procedural justice should be considered in preparation for future pandemics.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La pandémie de COVID-19 a créé des conditions de pénurie qui ont amené de nombreuses provinces canadiennes à élaborer des protocoles de triage pour l'allocation des ressources en soins intensifs. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous avons cherché à réaliser une synthèse narrative et une analyse éthique des premiers protocoles provinciaux de triage lors de la pandémie. MéTHODE: Nous avons recueilli les protocoles de triage provinciaux en correspondant de façon personnelle avec des intervenant·es universitaires et politiques entre juin et août 2020. Les données des protocoles ont été extraites indépendamment par deux personnes de l'équipe de recherche et comparées pour en vérifier l'exactitude et la concordance. Nous avons séparé les données en trois catégories pour l'analyse comparative du contenu : l'élaboration d'un protocole, le cadre éthique et le contenu du protocole. Notre analyse éthique s'est appuyée sur un cadre de justice procédurale. RéSULTATS: Nous avons obtenu un total de huit protocoles de triage provinciaux. Les protocoles étaient similaires dans leur contenu, bien que l'âge, les scores physiologiques et l'état fonctionnel aient été incorporés de manière variable. La plupart des protocoles ont été élaborés dans le cadre d'un processus consensuel multidisciplinaire dirigé par des expert·es, et bon nombre d'entre eux ont été élaborés en fonction des lignes directrices sur la pandémie de grippe élaborées antérieurement en Ontario. Tous les protocoles utilisaient des critères d'exclusion à plusieurs niveaux axés sur la moralité pour déterminer l'affectation de ressources limitées au niveau des systèmes de soins de santé régionaux. Aucun ne comportait de phase de mobilisation du public, bien que des consultations ciblées aient été menées auprès des groupes de défense des droits du public et des instances concernées dans certaines provinces. La plupart des protocoles n'étaient pas accessibles au public en 2020. CONCLUSION: Les premiers protocoles provinciaux de triage pour la COVID-19 ont été élaborés par des comités spécialisés d'expert·es dans des circonstances difficiles. Néanmoins, peu d'entre eux étaient accessibles au public et la consultation publique était limitée. Aucun protocole n'a été mis en œuvre, même pendant les périodes de pointe extrême en soins intensifs. Une approche nationale du triage en cas de pandémie qui intègre d'autres aspects de justice procédurale devrait être envisagée en prévision de futures pandémies.

How Seeking Transfer Often Fails to Help Define Medically Inappropriate Treatment.

On September 1, 2023, Texas made important revisions to it its decades-old statute granting legal safe harbor immunity to physicians who withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment over the objection of critically ill patients' surrogate decision-makers. However, lawmakers left untouched glaring flaws in a key safeguard for patients-the transfer option. The transfer option is ethically important because, when no hospital is willing to accept the patient in transfer, that fact is taken as strong evidence that the surrogates' treatment requests fall outside accepted medical practice. But there are serious shortcomings in how the transfer option is carried out in Texas and many other states, which undermines the ethical usefulness of the process. We identify these shortcomings and recommend revisions to state statutes and professional guidelines to overcome them.

The Pandemic of Invisible Victims in American Mental Health.

Although considerable attention has been devoted to the concepts of "visible" and "invisible" victims in general medical practice, especially in relation to resource allocation, far less consideration has been devoted to these concepts in behavioral health. Distinctive features of mental health care in the United States help explain this gap. This essay explores three specific ways in which the American mental health care system protects potentially "visible" individuals at the expense of "invisible victims" and otherwise fails to meet the needs of great numbers of people with serious psychiatric conditions: prioritization of the wrong patients, incentivization of excessive caution among providers, and a narrow definition of psychiatry's purview. While each of these practices has been discussed elsewhere in the literature, they are rarely considered as part of an interrelated and systemic problem. Reconceptualizing these three issues as aspects of the larger conflict between the interests of "visible" and "invisible" victims may prove a path toward reform.

Do Suicide Attempters Have a Right Not to Be Stabilized in an Emergency?

The standard of care in the United States favors stabilizing any adult who arrives in an emergency department after a failed suicide attempt, even if he appears decisionally capacitated and refuses life-sustaining treatment. I challenge this ubiquitous practice. Emergency clinicians generally have a moral obligation to err on the side of stabilizing even suicide attempters who refuse such interventions. This obligation reflects the fact that it is typically infeasible to determine these patients' level of decisional capacitation-among other relevant information-in this unique setting. Nevertheless, I argue, stabilizing suicide attempters over their objection sometimes violates a basic yet insufficiently appreciated right of theirs-the right against bodily invasion. In such cases, it is at least prima facie wrong to stabilize a patient who wants to die even if they lack a contrary advance directive or medical order and suffer from no terminal physical illness.

Professionalization of Clinical Ethics Consultants: A Need for Liability Protection?

Clinical Ethics Consultation (CEC) has grown significantly in the last decade, and efforts are being made to professionalize the practice. The American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) has been instrumental in this process, having published the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities for Healthcare Ethics Consultants and founded and endorsed the creation of the Healthcare Ethics Consultant Certified (HCEC) Certification Commission. The ASBH also published "core competencies" for healthcare ethics consultants and has delineated a clear identity and role of such consultants distinct from that other healthcare professionals. In addition, more enter the field armed with advanced degrees (MA and PhD) or certification in clinical ethics consultation. While some have questioned the trend toward professionalization, the momentum is clearly in its favor. This paper explores three questions: Does the professionalization of healthcare ethics consultation expose those engaged in the field to the types of liability claims faced by professionals in other fields? What specific liabilities could affect a healthcare ethics consultant? And finally, what should healthcare ethics consultants do to protect themselves against liability claims? We conclude that while the risk of liability remains low, those engaged in the field should accept that risk just as part of their status as professionals and, like those in allied professions, seek appropriate protection in the form of liability insurance.

Guidelines for conscientious objection in Spain: a proposal involving prerequisites and protocolized procedure.

Healthcare professionals often face ethical conflicts and challenges related to decision-making that have necessitated consideration of the use of conscientious objection (CO). No current guidelines exist within Spain's healthcare system regarding acceptable rationales for CO, the appropriate application of CO, or practical means to support healthcare professionals who wish to become conscientious objectors. As such, a procedural framework is needed that not only assures the appropriate use of CO by healthcare professionals but also demonstrates its ethical validity, legislative compliance through protection of moral freedoms and patients' rights to receive health care. Our proposal consists of prerequisites of eligibility for CO (individual reference, specific clinical context, ethical justification, assurance of non-discrimination, professional consistency, attitude of mutual respect, assurance of patient rights and safety) and a procedural process (notification and preparation, documentation and confidentiality, evaluation of prerequisites, non-abandonment, transparency, allowance for unforeseen objection, compensatory responsibilities, access to guidance and/or consultative advice, and organizational guarantee of professional substitution). We illustrate the real-world utility of the proposed framework through a case discussion in which our guidelines are applied.

Ritual and Power in Medicine: Questioning Honor Walks in Organ Donation.

Honor walks are ceremonies that purportedly honor organ donors as they make their final journey from the ICU to the OR. In this paper, we draw on Ronald Grimes' work in ritual studies to examine honor walks as ceremonial rituals that display medico-technological power in a symbolic social drama (Grimes, 1982). We argue that while honor walks claim to honor organ donors, ceremonies cannot primarily honor donors, but can only honor donation itself. Honor walks promote the quasi-religious idea of donation as a "good death," and mask the ambiguity and discomfort inherent in organ donation to promote greater acceptance by the medical community. While some goods may be achieved through honor walks, particularly for donor families, it is still important to examine the negative work done by this practice.

Nursing students' attitude toward euthanasia following its legalization in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Euthanasia is a controversial practice in many countries. Since Spain's Euthanasia Law came into effect on March 24, 2021, healthcare providers have faced a new challenge since they must inform patients, provide care, accompany them, and implement the law. It also represents a new stumbling block at universities, which must adapt to regulatory changes and educate future professionals accordingly. Little is known about the attitude of nursing students in Spain toward euthanasia since this law was implemented. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to answer the following research questions: What is the attitude of nursing students toward euthanasia? What factors influence this attitude? RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: The study population comprised all nursing students at a public university in Barcelona (n = 444), Spain, during the 2022-2023 academic year. The validated Spanish version of the Euthanasia Attitude Scale was employed. A bivariate analysis was performed. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The university Ethics Committee (CEEAH 6247) approved this study. All participating students signed an informed consent form. Participation was voluntary, and data anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-four nursing students responded to the questionnaire. The mean total score was 79.64. Participants with religious beliefs presented lower scores, indicating a more negative attitude toward euthanasia. Participants in their second, third, or fourth year of the nursing degree scored higher, demonstrating a more positive attitude. CONCLUSIONS: The attitude of nursing students toward euthanasia was remarkably positive. Working on ethical content during the degree course and clinical practice are factors that help to develop a more positive attitude. In addition, nursing education should encourage professional aspects to prevail over religious beliefs in euthanasia situations.

The Ethics of Time: Towards Temporal Bioethics.

In this paper I discuss the important yet overlooked role played by time in public health ethics, clinical ethics, and personal ethics, and present an exploratory analysis of temporal inequalities and temporal autonomy.

Close contacts of xenograft recipients: Ethical considerations due to risk of xenozoonosis.

With decades of pre-clinical studies culminating in the recent clinical application of xenotransplantation, it would appear timely to provide recommendations for operationalizing oversight of xenotransplantation clinical trials. Ethical issues with clinical xenotransplantation have been described for decades, largely centering on animal welfare, the risks posed to the recipient, and public health risks posed by potential spread of xenozoonosis. Much less attention has been given to considerations relating to potentially elevated risks faced by those who may care for or otherwise have close contact with xenograft recipients. This paper examines the ethical and logistical issues raised by the potential exposure to xenozoonotic disease faced by close contacts of xenotransplant recipients-defined herein as including but not limited to caregivers, household contacts, and sexual partners-which warrants special attention given their increased risk of exposure to infection compared to the general public. We discuss implications of assent or consent by these close contacts to potentially undergo, along with the recipient, procedures for infection screening and possible quarantine. We then propose several options and recommendations for operationalizing oversight of xenotransplantation clinical trials that could account for and address close contacts' education on and agency regarding the risk of xenozoonosis.

What are the views of Quebec and Ontario citizens on the tiebreaker criteria for prioritizing access to adult critical care in the extreme context of a COVID-19 pandemic?

BACKGROUND: The prioritization protocols for accessing adult critical care in the extreme pandemic context contain tiebreaker criteria to facilitate decision-making in the allocation of resources between patients with a similar survival prognosis. Besides being controversial, little is known about the public acceptability of these tiebreakers. In order to better understand the public opinion, Quebec and Ontario's protocols were presented to the public in a democratic deliberation during the summer of 2022. OBJECTIVES: (1) To explore the perspectives of Quebec and Ontario citizens regarding tiebreakers, identifying the most acceptable ones and their underlying values. (2) To analyze these results considering other public consultations held during the pandemic on these criteria. METHODS: This was an exploratory qualitative study. The design involved an online democratic deliberation that took place over two days, simultaneously in Quebec and Ontario. Public participants were selected from a community sample which excluded healthcare workers. Participants were first presented the essential components of prioritization protocols and their related issues (training session day 1). They subsequently deliberated on the acceptability of these criteria (deliberation session day 2). The deliberation was then subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 47 participants from the provinces of Quebec (n = 20) and Ontario (n = 27) took part in the online deliberation. A diverse audience participated excluding members of the healthcare workforce. Four themes were identified: (1) Priority to young patients - the life cycle - a preferred tiebreaker; (2) Randomization - a tiebreaker of last resort; (3) Multiplier effect of most exposed healthcare workers - a median acceptability tiebreaker, and (4) Social value - a less acceptable tiebreaker. CONCLUSION: Life cycle was the preferred tiebreaker as this criterion respects intergenerational equity, which was considered relevant when allocating scarce resources to adult patients in a context of extreme pandemic. Priority to young patients is in line with other consultations conducted around the world. Additional studies are needed to further investigate the public acceptability of tiebreaker criteria.

Knowledge, practice and communication barriers for oncology doctors in Chile when addressing the sexuality of their patients.

Introduction: Communication in a doctor-patient relationship constitutes a crucial aspect in medicine, and its multiple dimensions encompass a wide variety of ethical issues. Communication is particularly relevant in oncology, because it requires continually dealing with sensitive topics in one of the most highly vulnerable situations as a human: illness and proximity to death. Sexuality is one of these topics because it constitutes an area that is frequently affected by cancer and cancer treatment, which may include causing significant distress, the reinforcement of a negative self-image, relationship conflicts and a permanent memory of having cancer. The objective of this research is to describe the perception of knowledge and communications practices used by oncology doctors with respect to sexual health in the care of their patients, as well as the barriers found when it comes to confronting the topic. Methods: An exploratory quantitative, descriptive and cross-sectional study was carried out, in which a self-administered questionnaire was given to oncology doctors who practise in Chile. This questionnaire had 41 closed questions with answers on a Likert scale and was previously validated by being reviewed and applied to a pilot group of five professionals (one medical bioethics expert and four doctors in the field of oncology). The data were analysed with the SPSS statistical program v. 20, using descriptive statistics. Results: The main results show that the surveyed doctors consider sexuality to be an important part of patients' quality of life. However, this finding does not align with the practices given for including it as part of clinical care. The professionals refer as the main barriers those that are attributed to the structural functioning of the institution, giving little value to those barriers related to personal aspects or those associated with patient characteristics and/or behaviors. Conclusion: The results of this study show that, despite oncology doctors seeing sexuality as an important aspect of the quality of life of their patients, they do not include the topic in clinical care. Given that one of the main barriers is obstacles relating to the institution, it is necessary to create political institutions that create the conditions for including this area as a relevant part of cancer patient care.

Challenging Disability Discrimination in the Clinical Use of PDMP Algorithms.

State prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) use proprietary, predictive software platforms that deploy algorithms to determine whether a patient is at risk for drug misuse, drug diversion, doctor shopping, or substance use disorder (SUD). Clinical overreliance on PDMP algorithm-generated information and risk scores motivates clinicians to refuse to treat-or to inappropriately treat-vulnerable people based on actual, perceived, or past SUDs, chronic pain conditions, or other disabilities. This essay provides a framework for challenging PDMP algorithmic discrimination as disability discrimination under federal antidiscrimination laws, including a new proposed rule interpreting section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.

Exploration of Clinical Ethics Consultation in Uganda: A case study of Uganda Cancer Institute.

Introduction: Globally, healthcare providers (HCPs), hospital administrators, patients and their caretakers are increasingly confronted with complex moral, social, cultural, ethical, and legal dilemmas during clinical care. In high-income countries (HICs), formal and informal clinical ethics support services (CESS) have been used to resolve bioethical conflicts among HCPs, patients, and their families. There is limited evidence of mechanisms used to resolve these issues as well as experiences and perspectives of the stakeholders that utilize them in most African countries including Uganda. Methodology: This qualitative study utilized in-depth-interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to collect data from Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) staff, patients, and caretakers, who were purposively selected. Data was analyzed deductively and inductively yielding themes and sub-themes that were used to develop a codebook. Results: There was no formal committee nor mechanism utilized to resolve ethical dilemmas at the UCI. The study uncovered six fora where ethical dilemmas were addressed: individual consultations, tumor board meetings, morbidity and mortality meetings, core management meetings, rewards and sanctions committee meetings, and clinical departmental meetings. Participants expressed apprehension regarding the efficacy of these fora due to their non-ethics related agendas as well as members lacking training in medical ethics and the necessary experience to effectively resolve ethical dilemmas. Conclusion: The fora employed at the UCI to address ethical dilemmas were implicit, involving decisions made through various structures without the guidance of personnel well-versed in medical or clinical ethics. There was a strong recommendation from participants to establish a multidisciplinary clinical ethics committee comprising members who are trained, skilled, and experienced in medical and clinical ethics.

What is a High-Quality Moral Case Deliberation?-Facilitators' Perspectives in the Euro-MCD Project.

The evaluation of the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes project (Euro-MCD) has resulted in a revised evaluation instrument, knowledge about the content of MCD (moral case deliberation), and the perspectives of those involved. In this paper, we report on a perspective that has been overlooked, the facilitators'. We aim to describe facilitators' perceptions of high-quality moral case deliberation and their Euro-MCD sessions. The research took place in Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands using a survey combined with interviews with 41 facilitators. Facilitators' perceived that attaining a high-quality MCD implies fostering a safe and respectful atmosphere, creating a wondering mode, being an attentive authority, developing moral reflective skills, reaching a common understanding, and ensuring organisational prerequisites for the MCD sessions. Our central conclusion is that efforts at three levels are required to attain a high-quality MCD: trained and virtuous facilitator; committed, respectful participants; and organizational space. Furthermore, managers have a responsibility to prepare MCD participants for what it means to take part in MCD.

Stretching oneself too thin and facing ethical challenges: Healthcare professionals' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUNDS: Most countries are facing increased pressure on healthcare resources. A better understanding of how healthcare providers respond to new demands is relevant for future pandemics and other crises. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore what nurses and doctors in Norway reported as their main ethical challenges during two periods of the COVID-19 pandemic: February 2021 and February 2022. RESEARCH DESIGN: A longitudinal repeated cross-sectional study was conducted in the Western health region of Norway. The survey included an open-ended question about ethical challenges among doctors and nurses in hospital departments. Free-text comments were analysed using Systematic Text Condensation and also presented in a frequency table. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval was granted by the Regional Research Ethics Committee in Western Norway (131,421). All participants provided consent when participating in the study. RESULTS: In 2021, 249 and in 2022, 163 healthcare professionals responded to the open-ended question. Nurses and doctors reported three main categories of ethical challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) barriers that hindered them in acting as they ethically would have wanted to do; (2) priority-setting dilemmas linked to overtreatment, transfer of resources and ranking patient needs; and (3) workload expansion threatening work-life balance and employees' health. Category one comprised of resource barriers, regulatory barriers, system barriers, and personal barriers. Regulatory barriers, especially visitor restrictions for next-of-kin, were the most frequently reported in 2021. Resource barriers, related to the increased scarcity of qualified staff, were most frequently reported in 2022. Clinicians stretched themselves thin to avoid compromising on care, diagnostics, or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Developing clinicians' ability to handle and cope with limited healthcare resources is necessary. To foster resilience and sustainability, healthcare leaders, in collaboration with their staff, should ensure fair priority-setting and initiate reflections among doctors and nurses on what it implies to provide 'good enough' care.

Ethical considerations for artificial intelligence use in nursing informatics.

Artificial intelligence revolutionizes nursing informatics and healthcare by enhancing patient outcomes and healthcare access while streamlining nursing workflow. These advancements, while promising, have sparked debates on traditional nursing ethics like patient data handling and implicit bias. The key to unlocking the next frontier in holistic nursing care lies in nurses navigating the delicate balance between artificial intelligence and the core values of empathy and compassion. Mindful utilization of artificial intelligence coupled with an unwavering ethical commitment by nurses may transform the very essence of nursing.

Opening the Door: Rethinking "Difficult Conversations" about Living and Dying with Dementia.

This essay looks closely at metaphors and other figures of speech that often feature in how Americans talk about dementia, becoming part of cultural narratives: shared stories that convey ideas and values, and also worries and fears. It uses approaches from literary studies to analyze how cultural narratives about dementia may surface in conversations with family members or health care professionals. This essay also draws on research on a notable social effect of legalizing medical aid in dying: patients may find it easier to bring up a range of concerns, regardless of whether they have any interest in hastening their own death. The essay proposes that health care professionals rethink an idea prominent within their own culture: that conversations about the end of a person's life are inherently difficult. This framing may make it hard for people facing dementia to bring up their concerns about what lies ahead. We suggest a different way to think about these conversations, using the metaphor of "opening the door" to represent inviting a patient to bring up issues of deepest concern.